Further Musings On the Peace of the Gun

[caraig]

Some interesting comments were brought up in my previous journal entry, and I'd like to expand on some of the thoughts that were brought up in it. As with most things I do -- unlike the little review of King Arthur, of which the most ticklingly proud thing was the title: "Through a Glass Carbonated" (sometimes I crack myself up) -- this is somewaht rambly, long on words and short on organization. Beyond this point lie dragons of verbage.

I'd disagree on Justice being an artifical concept. Sayng it is artificial relegates it to the concept of a commodity tht can be bought and sold. 'Justice' is bought and paid for by the person with the most money, the most lawyers, and, inevitably, the most guns. 'Might makes right,' and all that. Some poeple have no problem with a Peace of the Gun, in that it does bring order and stability, though at cost. I disagree with the concept of the Peace of the Gun in principle. Coercion is inethical; and yet, and here is the conundrum, it works. Sadly, Might might not make Right, but it certainly makes the status quo. As an example, see the current marginalization of the native American tribes, or for a more international flavor the claim that China has over Tibet. Or the depressingly recurrent tribal wars in Africa, the most recent of which are the Rwandan atrocities. He with the biggest and most guns wins, makes the rules, and writes history.

The trouble with this, of course, is that the people most willing to wave around the biggest guns tend to not be the most socially-minded folk. The Peace of the Gun is that which is established by the modern meaning of the word "tyrant," in that it must be constantly stomped into the people who are so "governed."

Unfortunately, while you probably won't hear any politician publically disagreeing, I am also aware that in realpolitik this sort of thing is naivety. Not that the Peace of the Gun and the strongarm tactics and genocides are right, but that they are what happen, no matter how much I fold my arms and say 'That's not right!' There are thus two solutions: to sit there and let events happen, or to stand up and happen to events. Despite what you might think, Mohandas Ghandi favored the latter though his doctrine of civil disobedience. Rosa Parks was another.

In the rants on my web site -- before I got to rant and ramble here ^^ -- i repeatedly talked about the importance of three concepts, the phrasing of which I lifted form elsewhere but only because they had a nice direct touch. They are:

• Free your mind.
  
• The truth shall set you free.
  
• Fear nothing.
  

The important thing for now is the first. As I said above, the world will not be changed by admonitions of ethics, either mute or voluminous. Again, however, this does not justify the actions that we know to be wrong. The best we can do now is to recognize in as unbiased a way as possible just what is wrong with our society, culture, and civilization -- I think the issues we are facing go beyond national lines -- and be honest about them. These are problems that are not only external, meaning societal, but integral as well, within ourselves as individuals. If any change is to happenn, it has to come from within -- trite, but true.

as I have said before, I fall on the left side of the house, and I'm afraid that because of that some folks pretty much dismiss my opinions as a matter of course, if not dismiss me myself. I do not believe, however, that anyone can be Pangloss and declare this to be the best of all possible worlds. Even if in the US we do not have a police state (yet) or intertribal/interracial war (yet) or a collapse of social welfare institutions (yet), still there is a lot of room for improvement.

Not sure what else I can say here, really. Perhaps Ive thought overlong about this posting, so it is time to post it and see what comes of it.

As I said, a bit discomboulated and somewhat rambling. Pax.

Comments

Part 01

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

I'd disagree on Justice being an artifical concept. Sayng it is artificial relegates it to the concept of a commodity tht can be bought and sold. 'Justice' is bought and paid for by the person with the most money, the most lawyers, and, inevitably, the most guns.

But that's how it is. it's like disagreeing the sun will rise in the East.

Once again I rise to the bait, because you make me think, but make me think in the way that there is a burglar in the downstairs. :-) So I will post, and once again get taken apart by malohin , because that's his job. :-) I admit I am not good at arguing, and I do not like confrontation, but I did feel compelled to answer, as I think it wasmy response that prompted this post.

Rwanda was a failure because there was not enough guns, not enough might. What Rwanda was, was a breakdown of centrl authority, when the president's plae was rocketed out of the sky, and then the fastest rate of mass death since Hiroshima, all done with machete's and kitchen knives, and a sense of "getting even". If all sides had been armed with guns, the rate of death would have been much lower, and spread over months or years, in a civil war. It's now a civil war, with political pretence, but in the basics, it's ethnotribal hatred that fuels it. When ducking for cover and moving caefully, you tend not to see a lot of targets either. But that may be beside the point.

I have a lot invested in the status quo the stability that allows me a job in what is essentially a frivolous passtime, Putting my talents to use to make (finaly) a decent salary. It allows me to live peacefully with my (somewhat noisy) neighbors. From that, I pay the bills for the services I choose (Internet, Phone, Cel Phone,), some that come as part of a transaction for shelter (rent, utilities), some for necessities (food, clothing), and some coerced, by force of law, backed by might. (Federal, state, and local tases, Vehicle registration). as with such an investment, I am suspicious or wary of anything that might change it. In honesty, I supose, I will hve to say in truth, my outlook and politics are motivated by selfishness, the desire to maintain my comfort and property.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.

Noble sounding, but I'm always looking at that "from", and thinking that historically it was appropriated or coerced without concent. Looking at that "from", what am I going to lose? I don't think I am alone on this either, this selfishness, or self interest. Most people will help out a family member, Many will help friends until it hurts, Some become teachers, some become doctors, a few become firefighters, fewer still, become crusaders, and rare individuals become Mohandas K. Ghandi. Ghandi I know a little about, as my mother was a Quaker, and Ghandi was the example for change, but even Ghandi said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest." Ghandi was a smart man, and worked with the tools he had in hand to get to his objective. He achieved this mostly through using his opponent's morality against them. His tactics woked against the British, but most like would have not worked against the Japanese, had they invaded from Burma in 1943. Ghandi, being a lawyer, also knew how to use words,and argue well, and he used emotional blackmail by fasting to control the population, that had an interest in his well being and goals, when the they got violent. he succeeded, the British turned the country peacefully over to home rule in 1947. And then The coutry came apart with sectarian violence that the "Peace of the Gun" by the British had kept a lid on. Ghandi's assasin, still alive, has no regrets.

(cont.)

Part 02

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

Most people I believe, want to be left alone to mamage ther own affairs, to manage their households, raise their families, go to their jobs. I do not consider most people to be intelligent, but I believe that most people have a system, cultural, religious, or intellectual, that allows them to manage their affairs in good order. Most have investments in the status quo, for stability, income and the ability to predict future events with some reasonability. (Rent at this date, means I'l have to have that amount by that date). the weight of the status quo was nicely discussed in that recent Jonah Goldberg Link I posted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200408200923.asp
He takes on a narrow arguement. The piece may seem to be about Gay marraige, but he's taing on a narro argument raised by a proponent. Goldberg thinks that Gay marraige is inevitable, but this section came to mind reading your piece.

Change without social consensus will seem to millions as merely the arbitrary abuse of power, as it surely would have if the Supreme Court had ruled in 1904 that those who were commonly called sodomites should, with the bang of a gavel, be given the right to marry one another. Rauch might respond that justice delayed is justice denied, or some such, and he might have a good case. But as a matter of human behavior, that wouldn't change the analysis. After all, we were right to abolish slavery as a matter of justice. But the lack of social consensus to do so birthed not only America's bloodiest war but generations of civil discord, which endures today.

Essentially you seem to be coming from this from a Utopian perspective. My Idea of a Utopia would be a house na hillside, witha moderate amount of land, enough that I don't see my neighbor's house. a creative job within easy commute with my flying car, and getting to gether with friends on th weekend for a barbeque, and shooting, with all of us watching movies and cleaning what we used after the sun goes down. Easy access to info, and a certain "smalltown" feel of the local community. Your utopia may be different, in fact it probably is. Utopia is subjective. One man's Utopia is another man's hell. Utopianism, or belief in utopianism, i think is one of the most dangerous ideas out there, because of it's subjectivity. the road to hell, et cetera. I think a better idea is to create for yourself the environment you want to live in personally,and enjoy that freedom, without imposing one's utopian ideal upon someone else. Choose your arraigements, rather than be coerced itno them "for the common good". the U.S. is not perfect, but it works.

Scott

Part 03

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

Finally, I don;'t dismiss your opinions. I consider them, as you presented them in a reasonable manner, and a thoughtful way. But that being said, i don't agree with your base premises, as I think it is better to live well yourself within your communitythat taking on the burdens of the world. See if you can use the system to achieve some of your goals. You acknowledge that the "Might makes Status quo, if Not right" works, but if you wish to change the opinions of others, who also know this, you will have to appeal to other people's less noble desires , as well as the ideals. You have to show how they can advance within such a system, without losing what they have allready invested. as chuck Jones said, "don't say 'no', think of a better idea." you'll have to sell it to a public who is mostly afraid of losing ground. Selling it to folks with notng to lose is easy, but they are also the ones who tend not to be able to afford guns or status. However I will continue to vote, and work to maintain the satus quo, and work against any losses to my freedoms, my property or my interests, non of which are criminal (yet). there are even some things that can rouse me out of my cocoon, and be inconvinienced, if I think it's important enough.

Scott